Santosh Goswami vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 4093 Chatt

                  T OHIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                                     Order Sheet
                                CRA No. 635 of 2021
                   Santosh Goswami Versus State Of Chhattisgarh

DB
Hon'ble Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal and
Hon'ble Shri Sachin Singh Rajput JJ.



     28.06.2022        Mr. A. N. Pandey, Counsel for the appellant.

                       Mr. Kapil Maini, P. L. for the State/respondent.

Mr. Gajendra Kumar Sahu, counsel for the objector/prosecutrix.

Heard on I.A.No.3, which is an application for suspension of

sentence and grant of bail.

By impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence

dated 19.11.2020 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge,

First FTC(POCSO) Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur(CG) in Special

Sessions Trial No.88/2017, whereby the appellant has been

convicted and sentenced in the following manner:-

Conviction Sentence

Under Section 506(ii) of I.P.C. R.I. for 3 years and fine of Rs.

                                                     1000/-    and     in   default   of
                                                     payment of fine additional S.I.
                                                     for one year.

Under Section 376(3) of I.P.C. Life Imprisonment and fine of Rs.2000/- and in default of payment of fine Additional S.I.

for 3 years.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that in spite of there

being number of contradictions & omissions in the evidence of the witnesses examined by the prosecution, learned Court below has

fallen in a serious error in convicting the applicant guilty under

Sections 506(ii) & 376(3) of the IPC. He further submits that the

prosecution has not even adduced any evidence to show that on

the date of incident she was minor and therefore, in these

circumstances, it is a fit case where the appellant is entitled for his

release on bail.

On the other hand, State counsel opposes the application for

suspension of sentence and grant of bail on the ground that there is

ample evidence to show that the accused/appellant committed rape

on the minor prosecutrix, and being so, he is not entitled for grant of

bail.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and taking into

consideration the material available on record particularly the

statement of prosecutrix (PW-2) who at the relevant time was just

13 years of age which is proved by Dakhil Kharij

Register(Ex.P/20C), we do not see any good reason to entertain

this application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail.

Accordingly, the same is rejected.

Accordingly, I.A.No.03 is rejected.

                         Sd/-                                      Sd/-

                (Sanjay K. Agrawal)                     (Sachin Singh Rajput)

                        Judge                                    Judge
Parul